These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#481 - 2013-08-23 19:17:42 UTC
Andski wrote:
Let's say I decide to gank a freighter. I don't want the gank to fail through the target surviving, so I use significantly more DPS than what is needed to take down the freighter before CONCORD arrives. That leaves me two options: use a small number of pilots in tier 3 BCs or use a large number of pilots in destroyers. The former option is more expensive ISK-wise, but I only end up with around a dozen dudes stuck in GCC limbo, but even 2-3 dudes failing to engage on time can fail the gank. With destroyers, I end up with a lot more pilots stuck in GCC limbo, and there is a lot more room for error if a few guys fail to engage on time.

If I end up with too many pilots stuck in GCC limbo, I risk not having enough numbers to gank a lucrative target that may show up within the next 15 minutes. If I minimize the number of pilots in GCC limbo, the gank costs more, which means that I risk throwing away a lot more ISK if the drop isn't in my favor.



Yes that's true.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#482 - 2013-08-23 19:18:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.



This is true. But before you use a very base and simple statement, define the words.


No lets take that sentence as exactly as it is without any reading between the lines that are not there.

If suicide ganking is risk free then it should have a 100% success rate. Anything less is not risk free.



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#483 - 2013-08-23 19:19:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I just ran that through my head and envisioned every time you would derail a direct question by repeating your own and it made more sense to apply it to you than when you use those same words.

Not to get all psychological but it is becoming quite apparent you have issues with dominance.


As a friend on voice coms has said... There are a subset of people on the forums with an agenda and those people have so much cognitive dissonance that it hurts to read it.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#484 - 2013-08-23 19:20:23 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Suicide is the key part of the action in "suicide gank".


No the suicide part is caused by the gank happening in a way not allowed by CONCORD. Even if CONCORD was to let the gnakers run away, there would still be risk involved in a gank because your mark would still posibly get away.

Suicide ganking is ganking with more strict limitation. All the risks still applies.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#485 - 2013-08-23 19:21:33 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.


The goal in a suicide gank is the destruction of the target, not the loss of your ship. The self destruct function does the latter just fine.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#486 - 2013-08-23 19:23:58 UTC
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.


The goal in a suicide gank is the destruction of the target, not the loss of your ship. The self destruct function does the latter just fine.



But we are talking about the fact that when you attempt to do a suicide gank, the ship loss is a cost, not a risk.

Success is a risk, ship loss is a cost.

Or would you disagree?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#487 - 2013-08-23 19:25:34 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#488 - 2013-08-23 19:28:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.


The goal in a suicide gank is the destruction of the target, not the loss of your ship. The self destruct function does the latter just fine.



But we are talking about the fact that when you attempt to do a suicide gank, the ship loss is a cost, not a risk.

Success is a risk, ship loss is a cost.

Or would you disagree?


It's a risk because there are chance you will get it back in another form or not. It's like at the casino. The real money you put on the table is never coming back from that table even if you win. You will still ahve to take the tokens and go change them at a cashier. In EVE, after a gank, you take whatever you got out of your gank, ranging from nothing at all to salvage/loot/tears and have them exchanged. The money at the casino is at risk and so is the ship in EVE.

You will never get that catalyst back but you will also never get that 20$ bill back. You can only get it's value back just like the catalyst.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#489 - 2013-08-23 19:30:26 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Suicide is the key part of the action in "suicide gank".


No the suicide part is caused by the gank happening in a way not allowed by CONCORD. Even if CONCORD was to let the gnakers run away, there would still be risk involved in a gank because your mark would still posibly get away.

Suicide ganking is ganking with more strict limitation. All the risks still applies.



Oh so you're saying that suicide ganking has the same risks as canflipping or wardec fighting right? Because wrong.

They have different risks. Suicide risks you assess the cost of the ship against the potential profits of your target's destruction on the assumption that you will win, and your profits will offset your costs.

Since you know for a fact your ship WILL get blown up by Concord, as opposed to MAYBE get blown up by canflipping or wardeccing, you can then separate the words of "cost" and "risk" as they relate to the event.

That's the point I've been trying to make. There is a difference between cost and risk when you have a constant versus a chance.

Since in both canflipping and suicide ganking the associated risks are you will not make a profit, we know that the risks are the same in those 2 events right? Right. Now, the costs are INDEED different because Concord is involved in one, with 100% certainty of destruction (cost), and not to be involved in the second, which is controlled by the target which may or may not get away (risk).

Ergo, since we know that canflipping and suicide ganking are NOT the same, and we know both involve ganking... we can then strip it down and realize that the "suicide" part is what makes the difference, as we are not avoiding the Concord mechanic to address risk, but are racing against the clock and using Concord as a cost to our own ship loss.

This is why we have such terms as ganking, suicide ganking, can flipping, etc. We know the terms are used in different ways because the act is done in different ways.

Which is why they are not the same.

Which is why cost and risk are 2 entirely different words as well.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#490 - 2013-08-23 19:32:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free. We are talking about ship loss being risk free as to be a cost instead.

I have mentioned this more than 5 times now. You are either being deliberate or just don;t get it, or care (/shrug).

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#491 - 2013-08-23 19:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.


I know a guy named Scordite Cowboy who ganks Ventures with a Thrasher. His failure rate is pretty low.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#492 - 2013-08-23 19:37:44 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.


The goal in a suicide gank is the destruction of the target, not the loss of your ship. The self destruct function does the latter just fine.



But we are talking about the fact that when you attempt to do a suicide gank, the ship loss is a cost, not a risk.

Success is a risk, ship loss is a cost.

Or would you disagree?


It's a risk because there are chance you will get it back in another form or not. It's like at the casino. The real money you put on the table is never coming back from that table even if you win. You will still ahve to take the tokens and go change them at a cashier. In EVE, after a gank, you take whatever you got out of your gank, ranging from nothing at all to salvage/loot/tears and have them exchanged. The money at the casino is at risk and so is the ship in EVE.

You will never get that catalyst back but you will also never get that 20$ bill back. You can only get it's value back just like the catalyst.



So you are disagreeing that success is a risk and ship loss is a cost? That was a very specific and deliberate statement I made. Are you sure you want to argue it? I even used the casino metaphor as well and you are wrong in using a "table" with money because as I mentioned in my comparison, you can win your blinds back. You can literally have that exact same chip with your finger print on it, back in your stack.

In Eve, you can only do that if you resell the ship for the same (or above price) and even then, you aren't getting the same isk back, only the same amount.

When you suicide gank, as what this thread is about, that ship is gone. No matter how much profit you get. Even 0 profit. That ship loss is a constant based on the isk you spent on it.

If you get 0 profit, that ship still cost 5mil (guessing number), if you got 50mil profit for a suicide gank, guess what? You STILL SPENT 5MILL ON THAT SHIP.

So your 50mil profit now because 45mil, to recoup costs right?

So. Success is a risk. Yes. Not been argued, or proven differently in this entire thread.

Ship loss is a cost, and that for some strange godamned reason has been argued.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#493 - 2013-08-23 19:37:48 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free.



Then why are you saying suicide ganking is risk free then if its not true?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#494 - 2013-08-23 19:38:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free. We are talking about ship loss being risk free as to be a cost instead.

I have mentioned this more than 5 times now. You are either being deliberate or just don;t get it, or care (/shrug).


You are the one deliberately trying to focus the discussion of suicide ganking on the suicide part while everybody else discuss the whole suicide gank.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#495 - 2013-08-23 19:38:33 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free. We are talking about ship loss being risk free as to be a cost instead.

I have mentioned this more than 5 times now. You are either being deliberate or just don;t get it, or care (/shrug).

I think you are misunderstanding the whole situation dude.
The argument is: Is susicide gankign a risk free endeavour.
The answer is no. Ignoring costs, ship loss, profits, etc as they are measures of level of success, the success of the operation is you kill the target, the failure of the operation is the target does not die. You can minimise the odds of failure by using more ships, higher DPS and through player skill, the same as any other endeavour.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#496 - 2013-08-23 19:39:15 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Captain Tardbar wrote:


I know a guy named Scordite Cowboy who ganks Ventures with a Thrasher. His failure rate is pretty low.


Name him. Shame him and see us gank him in turn for "fun".

Meanwhile, just about all other ganks are going to be done with profit at the heart.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#497 - 2013-08-23 19:39:28 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.


I know a guy named Scordite Cowboy who ganks Ventures with a Thrasher. His failure rate is pretty low.


Can you say 100% sure he will never ever have a freak incident making him fail the gank?
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#498 - 2013-08-23 19:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free.



Then why are you saying suicide ganking is risk free then if its not true?


How abou if we said "Limited Risk"? Would it make you happy? One with enough preparation can take whatever risk they have in ganking and reduce it to less than 1% failure rate.

Unless you are talking about people who just shoot targets randomly without scanning them down first. Which makes gankers look dumb if they do that.

Well except that guy who kills Ventures with his Thrasher. There is probaly no need to scan those down. He's always losing money doing that but he's said he doens't care about the money.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#499 - 2013-08-23 19:40:18 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free.



Then why are you saying suicide ganking is risk free then if its not true?



Because ship loss is a cost not a risk. Suicide ganking has zero risk. Success and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#500 - 2013-08-23 19:41:07 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.


The goal is the destruction of the target ship and the taking of its cargo and mods.

To be risk free the target ship must die and all of its cargo must drop and be safely dropped off in a safe station 100% of the time.



Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free. We are talking about ship loss being risk free as to be a cost instead.

I have mentioned this more than 5 times now. You are either being deliberate or just don;t get it, or care (/shrug).


You are the one deliberately trying to focus the discussion of suicide ganking on the suicide part while everybody else discuss the whole suicide gank.



No, back in the beginning, we quite specifically went over what was risk and what were costs.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.